Motorists Before Court On Intoxication Charges

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27496, 2 November 1954, Page 10

Motorists Before Court On Intoxication Charges

Arthur James Jamieson, aged 38, of Waikuku, pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday to a charge of driving a motor-car without due carp and attention. Mr L. N. Ritchie, S.M., was on the Bench. Jamieson was convicted and fined £5 and his driver’s licence was suspended for one inonth. The original suspension of two months was altered after the sitting when it was pointed out that the Qourt had power to suspend for one month only. Jamieson pleaded guilty and was fined £1 and costs for having no warrant of fitness for his car. A charge of driving while under the influence of liquor, to which he pleaded not guilty, was dismissed. Mr J. G. Leggat represented accused. Sub-Inspector J. C. Fletcher appeared for the police. Dr. F. L. Scott said he had examined accused 20 minutes after his arrest. Accused said he had consumed seven or eight beers in an hour and a half. He was in receipt of a 50 per cent, disability war pension for the loss of sight in an eye and a gunshot wound in his back. “I thought he was fit to drive,” said witness.

Traffic Officer L. F. Smith said he had seen a car stopped in the middle of Manchester-Tuam streets interseetlon with a woman standing by holding her head. She said that a car had run into her and the driver, after being asked to wait, had driven off. 'She gave him the number of the motorist. In a patrol round the block he saw a car with the number he had been given and signalled it to stop. It ignored his signal and was stopped by a traffic officer on foot whom he had called to his assistance. The motorist, accused, admitted being involved in an accident and when asked why he had left the scene he replied that it was to look for a parking place, Traffic Officer Smith continued. Accused alighted from the car and staggered into his arms. He gave his name as Arthur James Jamieson, but in-tlje police station said it was Allan James-Winn. The Magistrate: What is your cor-, rect name? Accused: Jamieson. Traffic Officer' J. ; F. Kinghome said that after he had stopped accused he smelt liquor on accused’s breath. He formed the opinion accused was drunk. He took the ignition key to the car and found half of it was missing. After some juggling he fitted the key, which had its other half already in the lock. As the outer portion of the key would not stay in the lock while the car was going he hung it on a nail placed conveniently nearby. Witness said he had driven the car (a 1929 model) to the police station, and its performance gave him strong doubts about its roadworthiness. He went through a pedestrian crossing, was nearly involved in an accident and, discovering that the car had no brakes, had to use the reverse gear to stop it. Constable C. J. Cruikshank said that when he saw accused at the police station he “was definitely drunk J’ He would not have liked to be driven by him. , Senior-Sergeant J. ?. Mather said accused did not look intoxicated and he considered him fit to drive.

“Defendant could have obtained a parking place before he was stopped by the traffic officers,” said the Magistrate. “It looks as if he was trying to get away, not because he was intoxicated but because he thought that his car was in such a condition that it should not be on the road. “In view of the doctor’s evidence and that of the senior-sergeant we have two traffic officers against,” he said. “Constable Cruikshank does not carry us a great deal further. I do not think I should call upon defendant to answer this charge. The traffic officers acted with promptitude and their conduct deserves commendation. But there is a possibility that other charges should have been brought.” Sub-Inspector Fletcher: I have had nothing to do with it. When Mr Leggat addressed the Magistrate with «a view to altering the decision to suspend accused’s licence the- Magistrate said: “The more you address me, the more you convince me of your wisdom in pleading guilty.” IMPRISONMENT Neil Houghton, aged 24. a truck driver (Mr D. W, Russell), pleaded *° living a motor-car while under the-influence of drink on October 16. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for seven davs, his driver’s licence was cancelled and he was prohibited from obtaining another for 18 months. Sub-Inspector Fletcher said that shortly before midnight accused had been driving In Moorhouse avenue and had run into a pole in the centre of the road. He later was arrested by a traffic officer who considered him unfit to drive. Mr Bussell said that a blowout had caused Houghton to .swerve and hit the pole. “PUNCH-DRUNK” MOTORIST Stanley Alfred Brooks, aged 42, a boilerman (Mr A. Hearn), pleaded not guilty to driving a motor-car while under the influence of drink in Oxford terrace on September 30. He was acquitted. Dr. F. L. Scott said he had examined, accused half an hour after he was hrrested. He considered him unfit to drive., , To Mr Heam witness said that had he known accused was punch-drunk from prizefighting it would have made a- difference to his opinion at the time. » Traffic Officer E. J. McJarrow said he had stopped accused, considered him drunk and arrested *him. Sergeant J. CartmeH and Constable R. J. Knight gave evidence that accused was intoxicated when he was brought to the Central Police Station by Traffic Officer McJarrow. Ralph Abraham Shapiro, a medical practitioner, of St. Helens Hospital, said that he had often seen accused et the hospital Where he was employed. He had examined accused after his arrest, and knowing that his slurred speech and unusual gait were normal, wrote in his report: “I consider he is no different from normal and I consider he is fit to drive.” It would have been possible for a doctor to be misled if accused was suffering from a mental condition caused by boxing. Giving evidence on his own behalf, accused said he had done a lot of professional prizefighting before the war. He had been advised by a doctor to give up boxing. Richard Harry Bates said he was proprietor of the Mandeville Hotel. He knew accused, who was not a heavy drinker. On the day in question his barman had considered accused drunk (not knowing him), but witness said that he was, in fact, perfectly sober. Recalled by Sub-Inspector Fletcher, who prosecuted. Dr. Scott said that

accused in Court looked much the same as he did at the time of his examination. “Is there a reasonable doubt in your mind as to whether he was intoxicated?” asked the Magistrate. “There is,” replied witness. “The Court has an equal doubt in its mind and that must resolve itself in favour of the accused,” said the Magistrate. REMANDED John Donald Stuart Baird, aged 27, a truck driver, was charged with driving a truck in Ranfurly street on October 14 while under the influence of drink. Mr A. Hearn, who appeared for accused, said his client had been suddenly taken sick and it was impossible, for him to appear in Court. He asked for a remand. Bail was renewed in the sum of £25 in accused's own recognisance. Rangi Stuart Dickson, aged 38, a panelbeater (Mr D. W. Russell) pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor on October 30, On the application of Sub-Inspector Fletcher he was remandc* to November 8. Bail was allowed at £25 in his own recognisance. TWO MEN CONVICTED Alfred Styants Darling, aged 30, a carpenter (Mr W. G. P. Cuningham),

was convicted by Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., on a charge of driving a truck on October 16 on the main road at Redcliffs while under the influence of liquor. He was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment and his licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from holding another for 18 months. Edward Elliot, aged 28, a carpenter (Mr A. K. Archer), was convicted andfined £2O, his licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from holding another for 21 months, on a charge of being in charge of the same truck while under the influence of liquor. Both men pleaded hot guilty to the charges.

Dr. F. L. Scott said he examined both accused at the Central Police Station. He considered both men were not fit to drive. Both said they had had about 12 beers.

James Nelson Sutherland said he was walking along the footpath on the main road at Redcliffs at 4.30 p.m. when he saw a truck coming down the road. The truck swerved badly. After it had passed he crossed the road, and upon arriving at the other side he heard a crash. Just before the crash the truck swerved towards a line of parked cars. Witness said he went to the accident and saw both accused. Elliot was staggering badly and was leaning on the lamp post or alternatively the mudguard of the truck. Darling was steadier in his gait. He considered both men were unfit to drive.

Charles Robert Jarden said he was delivering newspapers at 5 p.m. when he saw a truck collide with the rear of a car driven by a Mrs Truscott. When he arrived at the scene, Darling was in the driving seat and Elliot was alongside him. Both were intoxicated, said witness. He' telephoned the police, but while awaiting their arrival, Elliot got into the driving seat, started the engine, and attempted to drive away. Another spectator took the keys from the ignition.

Constable J. W. Jenkins said he was travelling towards Sumner on the main road when he came upon the accident. Elliot said he was driving and witness said he arrested him. He was unfit to drive. Darling said he was a passenger. Both men admitted having been drinking shortly before the accident. Darling was not as bad a case of intoxication as Elliot, although he was intoxicated. When he arrived at the police station he told Elliot that he was not driving at the time and Elliot agreed, said witness.

Constable W. G. S. Smith said he was called to the accident. He considered Elliot was bordering on drunkenness and Darling was not far behind him. On the way back in the police car Elliot said to Darling: “Remember you were’nt driving.” Darling disagreed and they had an argument about it. Sergeant A. Keown said he saw both accused at the police station. Although Elliot first said he was in charge of the truck, he (witness) later found out that Darling was the driver. Both men were unfit to drive a vehicle.

Darling said that during the afternoon he had had about 10 seven-ounce beers. The vehicle concerned was a strange one. He had not driven a car since about last Christmas. When the accident occurred he was travelling at about 25 miles an hour.

Elliot in evidence said that up to the time of the accident he was a passenger in the car. After the accident he felt dazed as a result of his head having struck the windscreen. After the accident. Darling had suggested shifting the truck off the road and he was given the keys. He did not remember starting the car. He only intended shifting it to the side of the road, said Elliot.